Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[AmericanFirst]

So you became an atheist because of one nun in one denomination. How pitiful.

 

[AmericanFirst]

He happens to be correct. But don't let the truth hamper your idiocy.

 

[Silhouette]

You have every right to oppose it, of course, but the Bible is not to be taken literally: that is heresy, which in your case, if you keep it up, will lead to apostasy from the gospel of Jesus Christ.

Once again you are opposing a non-issue: no one is going to force churches to accommodate LGBT weddings in their right to private association.

Your crowd is as numerous as the group that you say says, "You must marry me because I'm gay, and my rights supersede yours." Fourteen of you in each group.

The US Supreme Court just found in Hobby Lobby that closely held faith of taking the Bible literally is legal means to object to enabling certain behaviors. I would think that would apply particularly in the case of warnings of eternal damnation for mortal sins....you know, like the warnings of Jude 1 in the New Testament..

You've been paying attention to that I assume?

 

[JakeStarkey]

The US Supreme Court just found in Hobby Lobby that closely held faith of taking the Bible literally is legal means to object to enabling certain behaviors.

(1) Since you are not much of a believer, please accept my skepticism of your biblical understanding and theological prowess.

(2) The HL protects religious liberties, personal liberties, not "certain behaviors." You can walk down the middle of the street nakes and SCOTUS will not consider that protected liberties.

(3) Your misunderstanding of Windsor and HL is your issue, not to anyone else who understands the issues.

 

[BillyP]

I apologize for not seeing/responding to your drivel earlier, Wytch...yes, 38% of heteros have "tried" anal sex...most discover that shit flies everywhere (yuck) and it hurts and they never do it again...(tried that, got the T-shirt, moving on.) Gays are the assholes...they wanted tolerance, they got it...they wanted acceptance, OK...now they are demanding that we renounce our faith and participate/accommodate them in their perversion. That's what we get for tolerating in the first place.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

That right there, is the answer folks. It's that simple.

Don't worry, gays and the rest of us don't accept homophobes are normal people either, so you're pretty much equal to gays.

 

[BillyP]

Yes, that's very interesting. Your opinion has been filed in the oval cabinet of permanent storage. Have a nice day.

Jesus only hung around with guys, wore a dress and only banged a women once, once means that he didn't like it.
And he rode a donkey, which only women and slaves rode. And he wasn't a slave! Lol.

Your posts have been far too consistently boring. Not even humorous, just really boring..

I've placed you on my ignore list, with the rest of the boring posters. At least other gays here are actually making an attempt at discussing things. You, make them, look bad.

No, it just makes you a homo worshipper.

 

[Seawytch]

You know what I do when I "don't care" about something? I post over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and OVER...in a thread about it.

Comprehension fail?

I never said for a second that I don't care about homos trying to force themselves on my church, and my people.

I absolutely do care about that, which is why I'm here standing up for my Church, and my Christianity which will NEVER accommodate homos.

What I don't care about, is your opinion of me, or my Church, or Christianity.

I'm sorry you didn't grasp that, but hopefully this will clear it up.

Oh, well, I hope you live to see the day you are sorely disappointed because your church ends up welcoming the gheys with open arms...but your attitude is reminiscent of someone older...so you may not make it.

 

[Seawytch]

I apologize for not seeing/responding to your drivel earlier, Wytch...yes, 38% of heteros have "tried" anal sex...most discover that shit flies everywhere (yuck) and it hurts and they never do it again...(tried that, got the T-shirt, moving on.) Gays are the assholes...they wanted tolerance, they got it...they wanted acceptance, OK...now they are demanding that we renounce our faith and participate/accommodate them in their perversion. That's what we get for tolerating in the first place.

Hmmm...there was nothing in the poll to indicate they would never do it again.

Every straight guy I know want to stick their dick in a girls ass. This is a fact. The girls aren't as accommodating as the guys would like.

Yeah, tolerance...it often leads to more tolerance. How terrible.

Oh, and most often it's the family members of gays that are demanding that churches "accommodate" them.

 

[Seawytch]

Yep, those number are creeping up slowly...those numbers move both ways though...I was in favor of tolerance and secular acceptance (I figured it was none of my business and God could handle the queers in his own way.) Then, they walked into a bakery and tried to coerce a man into making a cake for them. They tried to swarm/mob Chik-fil-a (epic fail). Then, here on this board, they are plotting to force their way to the altar of the church and demand to be "married" (I suppose they will try and coerce the minister into performing the ceremony). You over played your hand with me, and you lost both tolerance and acceptance. I can guarantee you that I am not the only one that has come to my senses over the past year, or so. Those numbers that you are so proud of (just a little over half in one poll, YAAYY!!!) work both ways on any issue, you lost me and you are losing others by pushing too hard. Welcome to push back...

Except the numbers haven't moved "both ways" have they? No, they've only gone up and fast.

As for religious marriage, we've always had equal access to that, it's civil marriage that we demand equal access to.

 

[Seawytch]

You are correct, I did not mention lesbians.. I think that you are right, Joe. Anybody with half a brain can see that strapping on a fake penis and pretending to be a man is COMPLETELY NORMAL BEHAVIOR...people with a whole brain might disagree...

Except a lot of lesbians don't use dildos or strap ons. Some of us are quite content to use what god gave us. You obviously think about this a lot though...

 

[Seawytch]

The US Supreme Court just found in Hobby Lobby that closely held faith of taking the Bible literally is legal means to object to enabling certain behaviors.

(1) Since you are not much of a believer, please accept my skepticism of your biblical understanding and theological prowess.

(2) The HL protects religious liberties, personal liberties, not "certain behaviors." You can walk down the middle of the street nakes and SCOTUS will not consider that protected liberties.

(3) Your misunderstanding of Windsor and HL is your issue, not to anyone else who understands the issues.

(4)Justice Kennedy made clear that the majority isn’t rewriting RFRA to protect anti-gay discrimination.

 

[Gadawg73]

116 pages here and still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any church anywhere has been, will be or ever will be forced to marry anyone.

 

[Silhouette]

116 pages here and still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any church anywhere has been, will be or ever will be forced to marry anyone.

Yet as we speak, faithful within their religion to a given church are being sued in courts by gays and lesbians to be forced to support their "gay weddings" with cakes and photography.

Did you forget about that? How far of a legal step from forcing a faithful person in their business to defy their Biblical teachings in Jude 1 and the mortal sin of abetting homosexuality is it from there to inside the doors of a church? Not far friend. Not far at all. Because if you can force a person to defy their faith on a mortal-sin level, getting through those church doors with that precedent is a cake-walk for even a flunkie attorney.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, Sil has given no evidence for her political statements.

Two, she is no authority on Christian theology pertaining to sin, and if she were, such would mean nothing here since SCOTUS will not be reading Jude in context with its coming expansion of incorporating LGBT civil liberties IAW the 14th Amendment.

 

[Silhouette]

One, Sil has given no evidence for her political statements.

Two, she is no authority on Christian theology pertaining to sin, and if she were, such would mean nothing here since SCOTUS will not be reading Jude in context with its coming expansion of incorporating LGBT civil liberties IAW the 14th Amendment.

A lie and a hope all in one post. Speaking of flunkie attorneys...

 

[Gadawg73]

116 pages here and still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any church anywhere has been, will be or ever will be forced to marry anyone.

Yet as we speak, faithful within their religion to a given church are being sued in courts by gays and lesbians to be forced to support their "gay weddings" with cakes and photography.

Did you forget about that? How far of a legal step from forcing a faithful person in their business to defy their Biblical teachings in Jude 1 and the mortal sin of abetting homosexuality is it from there to inside the doors of a church? Not far friend. Not far at all. Because if you can force a person to defy their faith on a mortal-sin level, getting through those church doors with that precedent is a cake-walk for even a flunkie attorney.

Been there, done that, debated it and solved it.
Where have you been?
When your team did not want to serve the ******* they ruled you had to.
Sorry about that, you lose again.
That is not marrying people so quit being foolish with your maybes, ifs and it coulds.
Get over it. No cry babies. African Americans and gays, everyone deserve equal rights.

 

[JakeStarkey]

One, Sil has given no evidence for her political statements.

Two, she is no authority on Christian theology pertaining to sin, and if she were, such would mean nothing here since SCOTUS will not be reading Jude in context with its coming expansion of incorporating LGBT civil liberties IAW the 14th Amendment.

A lie and a hope all in one post. Speaking of flunkie attorneys...

That is an excellent description of your approach.

Pertaining to Gadawag's comment above: are you racist as well as homophobic?

 

[Gadawg73]

100% separate matter altogether and NOT related to in any way but:

Anyone that would deny homosexuals service based on religious grounds is not Christian and probably Muslim.
Christians love thy neighbor and do not judge.

 

[Silhouette]

116 pages here and still NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that any church anywhere has been, will be or ever will be forced to marry anyone.

Yet as we speak, faithful within their religion to a given church are being sued in courts by gays and lesbians to be forced to support their "gay weddings" with cakes and photography.

Did you forget about that? How far of a legal step from forcing a faithful person in their business to defy their Biblical teachings in Jude 1 and the mortal sin of abetting homosexuality is it from there to inside the doors of a church? Not far friend. Not far at all. Because if you can force a person to defy their faith on a mortal-sin level, getting through those church doors with that precedent is a cake-walk for even a flunkie attorney.

Been there, done that, debated it and solved it.
Where have you been?
When your team did not want to serve the ******* they ruled you had to.
Sorry about that, you lose again.
That is not marrying people so quit being foolish with your maybes, ifs and it coulds.
Get over it. No cry babies. African Americans and gays, everyone deserve equal rights.

Look at the prejudice in the liberal far left.

I'm a registered democrat, have voted democrat since the early 1980s consistently. Until now. Now I'm questioning that as a viable stance in regard to the platform you've shoved on my party.

One of my best friends growing up was black. We used to hang out all the time and neither of our parents had a problem with it. My family lines come from the Upper Midwest, not the South bro. Duly noted you equate "*******" with ass-sex. I'm sure my friend would LOVE the comparison...

You haven't addressed the cake and photography precedents. If you did, intellectually you would have to admit that if a faithful person can be forced to abandon their closely-held religious beliefs, so too can the church proper, in order to accomodate your deviant sex cult.

 

[Tuatara]

100% separate matter altogether and NOT related to in any way but:

Anyone that would deny homosexuals service based on religious grounds is not Christian and probably Muslim.
Christians love thy neighbor and do not judge.

First, christians (most of them) are the most judgemental people around and they do not love their neighbors especially if they are different. Christians do deny homosexuals which they say is based on religious grounds but as I pointed out earlier this is not true. One cannot point to the bible as a source of rules and morals and then only cherry pick certain items from it. They reject homosexuals because they are homophobic bigots.